Take an innocent life, pay a $500 fine

[PKRudeBoy]

The problem is the fact that those warning shots still go somewhere. If you shoot into the ground, there's less risk, but it could still ricochet. If you shoot into the air, that bullet could end up hitting a kid half a mile away.

[TheFeniX]

I feel that banning warning shots in the case of someone who is actually in fear of their life discriminates against those with less killing instinct. Those who are being approached by someone who sees the gun and (perhaps out of insane arrogance) decides to ignore it because "you don't have the guts to pull that trigger."

As said, warning shots are dangerous. You shoot to hit a target, not miss. And deadly force is warranted only when you're damn sure your life in is danger, so if you were scared enough to fire at all, you should be shooting to kill. If not, you need to run.

And if they actively try NOT to kill someone, suddenly they're an evil criminal instead of a person trying to protect themselves. Even though we already know quite well that in open warfare against armed enemies of their country, the typical person will routinely shoot to miss.

The sentences handed out for warning shots that don't injure anyone are insane. But there's alternatives to a gun if you're not willing to actually shoot someone as bluffing is a bad idea. There was a guy a few years back who fired a warning shot at someone advancing on him, who was still crazy enough to keep coming, and said attacker got killed for his trouble. Had the shooter not had so much distance, he might have lost possession of his gun.

Mace, Pepper Spray, Bear Spray, Tasers, etc. They might not have the killing power of a firearm, but that's kind of the point. If you aren't willing to pull the trigger when the shit hits the fan: you don't need a gun because then you're essentially allowing a potentially violent attacker access to a deadly weapon. Hell, there's even a range of less-lethal ammunition like rubber bullets for 9mm, although I know nothing of their performance, and bean bag shotgun rounds.

[Covenant]

Warning shots are dangerous, and not only do guns escalate a situation, but firing a gun also tremendously escalates a situation. Police do know this already, and predict that when one bullet gets fired, so will several others. Warning shots can force the person being shot at to go from a "freeze up" to a "fight or flight" that could force them from surrendering into defending themselves for fear they will be shot and killed. Situations like this are a good example. If the gun had been brandished with a "Git off mah pro-per-tay!" then there may have been no further incident. By firing he forced the kids into an evasive action (which he still misinterpreted as an attack) and led to the death of an innocent.

This is the unfortunate paradox of firearms. While a gun does make you more safe, it makes you more safe in the sense that it allows you to escalate violence above what an unstrapped person can compete with. It is the violence trump card but not an actual violence prevenative unless the firearm itself is not actually pointed or fired with, which is something a sensible gun owner would know, but a panicked gun owner is not always sensible.

I personally have nothing against responsible gun ownership (since it is fine as long as it is responsible, as has been shown in many other countries) but it may be better if people carried other less-lethal defense mechanisms like self-defense mace. Mace is very effective, will certainly subdue nearly all attackers, and does not travel half a mile to hit a child in the face. I would not recommend bear mace for normal self-defense stuff because you're going to basically melt someone's face off with the intensity of the scovilles it packs.

People should not use firearms to defend themselves unless the situation is appropriate for it. Unfortunately, when everyone is packing a firearm, nobody will be able to use effective less-than-lethal measures because the level of force must be assumed to rest around firearm-level. This is why, while gun ownership is reasonable, guns are a societal bane when used as blanket self-defense.

[amigocabal]

I don't think more guns are the answer, but warning shots are illegal pretty much everywhere, although Florida may soon allow them because well Floriduh. Which IMO, is completely reasonable. You really should not be pulling a trigger (outside of practice) unless you are prepared to kill someone in defense of your life or others lives. Hell, even people on gun forums with Molon fucking Labe in their sigs realize this. If you feel that a situation is serious enough to discharge a firearm, then you should be shooting at center body mass instead of the air.

If I were to judge this case, it would depend on whether the driver tried tio hit Sailors with the car, and, if so, whether the driver did so before or after the first shot.

A person really has no credibility to complain about someone trying to run him over with a car if he had shot at the car first.

[Joun_Lord]

I'm all for gun rights and the right to defend ones own life but adding more guns into the mix won't solve this problem and would probably make it more bloody.

The problem of gun abusing homeowners like Sailors, the guy who shot some woman begging for help through his door in Detroit I think, and that POS who waited for people to break in so he could execute them is probably not a massive one but still a problem. I know I don't want to get ventilated for turning my rust bucket around in someones driveway or get blasted looking for help.

The only way to really solve this problem is of course mandatory atleast basic gun safety classes on gun purchases (though how much this will help considering some people don't purchases guns very often if at all, their firearms are grandfathered in or bought a long time ago plus any training will disappear in a high stress situation) and punishment for people who abuse their gun rights.

Probably 9 times out of 10 a homeowner blazing away with his gat is legal but in the 1 times where the person improperly uses their firearms they should get in trouble, not some minor fine or something. Of course consideration given to circumstances, age, conditions, and whatever else might change the situation's make-up (scared old white guy afraid of the darkies doesn't count).

[TheFeniX]

The problem of gun abusing homeowners like Sailors, the guy who shot some woman begging for help through his door in Detroit I think, and that POS who waited for people to break in so he could execute them is probably not a massive one but still a problem. I know I don't want to get ventilated for turning my rust bucket around in someones driveway or get blasted looking for help.

The only way to really solve this problem is of course mandatory atleast basic gun safety classes on gun purchases (though how much this will help considering some people don't purchases guns very often if at all, their firearms are grandfathered in or bought a long time ago plus any training will disappear in a high stress situation) and punishment for people who abuse their gun rights.

How are safety classes going to cut down on bullshit self-defense claims? The guy was a war vet: he knew how to use a gun and what it would do to whatever he was shooting. Gun classes might be a good idea, but that's going to cut down on accidents: not murders.

Probably 9 times out of 10 a homeowner blazing away with his gat is legal but in the 1 times where the person improperly uses their firearms they should get in trouble, not some minor fine or something. Of course consideration given to circumstances, age, conditions, and whatever else might change the situation's make-up (scared old white guy afraid of the darkies doesn't count).

They do get into trouble. They usually go to jail for a long time. This one case of a guy getting a $500 fine doesn't really change that and likely had multiple mitigating factors. But, like that idiot who decided to shoot at a fleeing shoplifter, most morons with guns who start shooting at the slightest provocation go to jail and lose the ability to ever own a firearm again. EDIT: and a vast majority of gun owners are going to be happy for that.

[Haruko]

Wow, I got a stiffer fine for a school zone speeding violation*.



*$600 and refusal by judge to reduce for 40 mph minutes before the traffic cop was going to leave, the school was already empty, and the guy in the lane next to me was going 15 mph faster. (And no, it was not at a construction zone.)

[Borgholio]

Wow, I got a stiffer fine for a school zone speeding violation*.



*$600 and refusal by judge to reduce for 40 mph minutes before the traffic cop was going to leave, the school was already empty, and the guy in the lane next to me was going 15 mph faster. (And no, it was not at a construction zone.)

Wait, was it one of those "25mph when children are present" signs? If so, they would have to prove children were present. Did they?

[Terralthra]

On the other hand there was that Florida woman sentenced to twenty minimum for firing a warning shot into the ceiling.

The bullet ended up in the ceiling but it was fired at his head. Both the husband and wife lied about it in an attempt to keep her out of jail but the forensics proved otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Orde ... to-Dismiss

Ok...can you provide evidence of what you just said? Because that is a preliminary court document saying the case won't be dismissed, and says absolutely nothing about forensics or any of the involved parties lying. In short, it does not support your claim.

[Simon_Jester]

I feel that banning warning shots in the case of someone who is actually in fear of their life discriminates against those with less killing instinct. Those who are being approached by someone who sees the gun and (perhaps out of insane arrogance) decides to ignore it because "you don't have the guts to pull that trigger."

As said, warning shots are dangerous. You shoot to hit a target, not miss. And deadly force is warranted only when you're damn sure your life in is danger, so if you were scared enough to fire at all, you should be shooting to kill. If not, you need to run.

It's not like running wouldn't also be an appropriate response to being sure your life is in danger.

I get that warning shots are dangerous, but shooting and missing (or shooting and having the bullets overpenetrate) are also dangerous to innocent bystanders. Anything that can possibly be done with a gun is dangerous. If you say that it is unacceptable to use a weapon in a way that might cause harm to bystanders, you're basically denying people the right to use it at all.

And if they actively try NOT to kill someone, suddenly they're an evil criminal instead of a person trying to protect themselves. Even though we already know quite well that in open warfare against armed enemies of their country, the typical person will routinely shoot to miss.

The sentences handed out for warning shots that don't injure anyone are insane. But there's alternatives to a gun if you're not willing to actually shoot someone as bluffing is a bad idea.

Yes, but then there's the person who seriously thinks they can shoot something, then turns out to place too high a value on human life for that in the heat of the moment. Or someone who simply grabs whatever self-defense weapon is handy and doesn't spend hours comparison-shopping beforehand. Or who owns guns for purposes other than self-defense, and uses them for self-defense when suddenly attacked.

I mean, there are people who have defended themselves against an attacker with swords. That is probably not a deliberate decision to use a sword as a self-defense tool/weapon. It's because that was what they had lying around. And guns are more common than swords.

There was a guy a few years back who fired a warning shot at someone advancing on him, who was still crazy enough to keep coming, and said attacker got killed for his trouble. Had the shooter not had so much distance, he might have lost possession of his gun.

I suspect there are also anecdotal cases of people who WERE deterred by a warning shot fired across their bows.

Mace, Pepper Spray, Bear Spray, Tasers, etc. They might not have the killing power of a firearm, but that's kind of the point. If you aren't willing to pull the trigger when the shit hits the fan: you don't need a gun because then you're essentially allowing a potentially violent attacker access to a deadly weapon. Hell, there's even a range of less-lethal ammunition like rubber bullets for 9mm, although I know nothing of their performance, and bean bag shotgun rounds.

How can you truly know you're willing to pull the trigger until you've had the opportunity to find out firsthand? And, again, what if you own guns for other reasons, or someone else in your home does, and you're just picking up the first viable self-defense tool that comes to hand?

See, I get the idea that recklessly blazing away with firearms is bad, especially in a heavily populated area. But at the same time, it's absurd that you can get in anywhere near as much trouble for shooting over someone's head on purpose as you can for blowing a hole in their knee and crippling them.

[Haruko]

Wow, I got a stiffer fine for a school zone speeding violation*.



*$600 and refusal by judge to reduce for 40 mph minutes before the traffic cop was going to leave, the school was already empty, and the guy in the lane next to me was going 15 mph faster. (And no, it was not at a construction zone.)

Wait, was it one of those "25mph when children are present" signs? If so, they would have to prove children were present. Did they?

Yeah, it was, and he referred to children in the general vicinity. There were two or three cars on the other side of the school (parents picking up a child), in one of the two parking lots. The side I was on was completely empty, so I only noticed this after getting the ticket and looking around.

(It was 4:57, three minutes after that 'during school hours' rule would no longer be in effect, and long after everyone should have been gone.)

[Borgholio]

Meh. I would have called him out and asked him to prove it. Provide photo or video evidence of children in the nearby area. If you really wanted to be anal about it, provide a map showing the school zone and prove the child was outside of the zone and thus doesn't apply. That's why I never liked signs like that. It's open to interpretation to the point where a cop can make up anything and say it applied.

[Haruko]

Meh. I would have called him out and asked him to prove it. Provide photo or video evidence of children in the nearby area. If you really wanted to be anal about it, provide a map showing the school zone and prove the child was outside of the zone and thus doesn't apply. That's why I never liked signs like that. It's open to interpretation to the point where a cop can make up anything and say it applied.

Just remember the two/three cars on the other side of the school, so edited that into my post. But yeah, it bugged me because I was already weary of driving fast when children are present, but while scanning I saw nobody around (not even any cars on the parking lot on the side I was on). In fact, I saw the cop but did not slow down because I assumed empty school (at least until I realized the two/three cars on the other side) meant it was OK to go normal speed. No need for parents to worry anymore, though: I just avoid school zones altogether now.

[Kon_El]

On the other hand there was that Florida woman sentenced to twenty minimum for firing a warning shot into the ceiling.

The bullet ended up in the ceiling but it was fired at his head. Both the husband and wife lied about it in an attempt to keep her out of jail but the forensics proved otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Orde ... to-Dismiss

Ok...can you provide evidence of what you just said? Because that is a preliminary court document saying the case won't be dismissed, and says absolutely nothing about forensics or any of the involved parties lying. In short, it does not support your claim.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/th ... -are-true/
Good enough?

[Terralthra]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/th ... -are-true/
Good enough?

No? I can provide equal and opposite links. Like this one. The fact that she was charged with "aggravated assault without intent to kill" would seem to show that the prosecuting attorney did not believe she shot at Gray in earnest.

[Kon_El]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/th ... -are-true/
Good enough?

No? I can provide equal and opposite links. Like this one. The fact that she was charged with "aggravated assault without intent to kill" would seem to show that the prosecuting attorney did not believe she shot at Gray in earnest.

That isn't an opposite link at all. They both show that the bullet went through a wall at about head height before becoming lodged in the ceiling. That does not fit the definition of "Into the ceiling". Only she knows if she intended to hit him, but the evidence is clear that she fired in his direction.

[Terralthra]

That isn't an opposite link at all. They both show that the bullet went through a wall at about head height before becoming lodged in the ceiling. That does not fit the definition of "Into the ceiling". Only she knows if she intended to hit him, but the evidence is clear that she fired in his direction.

The prosecutor didn't think she intended to hit him. That's why she was charged without intent to kill. Your initial claim was "forensics proved she tried to shoot him in the head!" and now you've changed your mind to "fired in his direction" and "only she knows if she intended to hit him."

[Kon_El]

That isn't an opposite link at all. They both show that the bullet went through a wall at about head height before becoming lodged in the ceiling. That does not fit the definition of "Into the ceiling". Only she knows if she intended to hit him, but the evidence is clear that she fired in his direction.

The prosecutor didn't think she intended to hit him. That's why she was charged without intent to kill. Your initial claim was "forensics proved she tried to shoot him in the head!" and now you've changed your mind to "fired in his direction" and "only she knows if she intended to hit him."

My claim was that she "fired at his head". Even if you don't believe she intended to hit him, she sure as hell wasn't firing at the ceiling.

[TheFeniX]

It's not like running wouldn't also be an appropriate response to being sure your life is in danger.

It is.

I get that warning shots are dangerous, but shooting and missing (or shooting and having the bullets overpenetrate) are also dangerous to innocent bystanders. Anything that can possibly be done with a gun is dangerous. If you say that it is unacceptable to use a weapon in a way that might cause harm to bystanders, you're basically denying people the right to use it at all.

You're legally liable for any damage caused by the rounds you fire whether they hit or not. But as I said, you don't fire a gun unless deadly force is required, so by intentionally missing, you're basically stating you weren't in enough danger to respond with deadly force. You screw yourself legally. I don't agree with this line of reasoning, but I understand it.

I suspect there are also anecdotal cases of people who WERE deterred by a warning shot fired across their bows.

Yes, but that it can work doesn't change the fact that if it doesn't work and you're not willing to kill your attacker, you're basically giving them a deadly weapon because you wasted time firing warning shots rather than running to create distance.

How can you truly know you're willing to pull the trigger until you've had the opportunity to find out firsthand? And, again, what if you own guns for other reasons, or someone else in your home does, and you're just picking up the first viable self-defense tool that comes to hand?

You don't. If you own a gun for reasons outside self-defense, it shouldn't be kept out in the open or loaded. There's no reason it should be the first weapon you stumble across if you weren't keeping it for self-defense.

See, I get the idea that recklessly blazing away with firearms is bad, especially in a heavily populated area. But at the same time, it's absurd that you can get in anywhere near as much trouble for shooting over someone's head on purpose as you can for blowing a hole in their knee and crippling them.

I don't disagree with you.

[Simon_Jester]

You're legally liable for any damage caused by the rounds you fire whether they hit or not. But as I said, you don't fire a gun unless deadly force is required, so by intentionally missing, you're basically stating you weren't in enough danger to respond with deadly force. You screw yourself legally. I don't agree with this line of reasoning, but I understand it.

Um, I know this.

My argument has been that this creates an injustice. People who cling until the last moment the hope that the attacker might be deterred by armed force, but who would sincerely prefer not to kill people, are being treated here as being as bad (if not worse) compared to people who are quicker to pull that trigger.

Essentially, the current laws on the books select for ruthless and trigger-happy "self-defense." There's no advantage in holding your fire long enough for an opponent to find some way of hurting you, and there's no advantage to taking any action other than killing the opponent. Therefore, the incentive is to kill and hope that whatever combination of 'castle doctrine' and 'dead men tell no tales' that is in play will protect you.

And that's a bad thing.

I suspect there are also anecdotal cases of people who WERE deterred by a warning shot fired across their bows.

Yes, but that it can work doesn't change the fact that if it doesn't work and you're not willing to kill your attacker, you're basically giving them a deadly weapon because you wasted time firing warning shots rather than running to create distance.

If you weren't willing to kill your attacker, it really didn't matter what you did with the weapon in the first place. Bringing it was a mistake, picking it up was pointless- unless they are deterred, as most people would be by the sight of their target suddenly drawing a gun.

I am sympathetic to people who fire a warning shot as a last-ditch attempt to use their deterrent capability short of actually injuring or killing people. There's a reason it's a time-honored technique in certain kinds of warfare and patrol duty (i.e. on the high seas).

You don't. If you own a gun for reasons outside self-defense, it shouldn't be kept out in the open or loaded. There's no reason it should be the first weapon you stumble across if you weren't keeping it for self-defense.

Fine- and yet, perhaps it is. Perhaps someone else keeps it for self-defense and is totally willing to kill with it because they're Rambo, but they're not home. Perhaps you handled firearms a bit carelessly and left it loaded- maybe that's a violation of some ordnance regarding gun safety, but it doesn't invalidate your right to attempt to protect yourself by using the gun as a deterrent. Perhaps you heard a burglar downstairs and had time to load a weapon before coming down.

There are a lot of reasons why a person might pick up a gun in an attempt to deter or see off an attacker or intruder, without being a cold-blooded hardened killer type. And with being likely to freeze and be reluctant to kill in their first violent situation... like most of humanity is according to the results from actual infantry combat.

[eyl]

Or to put it another way, by the same logic which forbids warning shots, once you draw a weapon any attempt you make to try and deescalate the situation can be construed as evidence you were nor justified in drawing the weapon in the first place.

[Thanas]

The problem is the fact that those warning shots still go somewhere. If you shoot into the ground, there's less risk, but it could still ricochet. If you shoot into the air, that bullet could end up hitting a kid half a mile away.

Not this "warning shots are so dangerous" nonsense again. This danger is vastly overestimated.

[salm]

You're legally liable for any damage caused by the rounds you fire whether they hit or not. But as I said, you don't fire a gun unless deadly force is required, so by intentionally missing, you're basically stating you weren't in enough danger to respond with deadly force. You screw yourself legally. I don't agree with this line of reasoning, but I understand it.

I find that line of reasoning to be illogical. The gun wielder is stating that he wasn´t enough in danger to respond with deadly force. But that doesn´t translate to not enough danger to use a gun.
I mean, if you have a gun you can either try to kill the other person or to scare him enough to leave you alone. If you don´t have a gun you can do neither. The law seems to argue as if the possibility of scaring people with a gun doesn´t exist.
The laws notion that you can only use guns when intending to use deadly force appears flawed to me.

[General Zod]

The laws notion that you can only use guns when intending to use deadly force appears flawed to me.

If you're not willing to follow through the gun can be taken from you and used against you or someone else. It becomes a massive liability if your attacker calls your bluff.

Exhibit A.

[Borgholio]

Open carry advocates are idiots anyways. He was probably just carrying to make himself feel like a big man.